THINK I've just been caught speeding on motorway

[DT Ralge]

Not sure where you get the £110m from but i'd like to hazard a guess its a lot more, the awreness course I went to had 5 classes running concurrently with around 20-25 in each class, 5.5 days a week at £85 a time work that one out.

 

The Speed Course money does not go to the Treasury. It goes, largely, to private companies (with only a small amount of that retained by the Police for administering/overseeing the course).

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2017 at 15:10 ----------

 

That would be on the nose of the 10%+2, it's only a guideline of course.

 

I meet plenty of drivers with points or a course as a result of <35 mph in a 30 zone.

[top4718]

Anybody driving at that speed on British Roads isn't driving safely and indeed shouldn't be on the road.

 

Don't be ridiculous.

[L00b]

I meet plenty of drivers with points or a course as a result of <35 mph in a 30 zone.

Stands fully to reason that the tolerance should be 'tighter' in 30 zones, considering the context for such limits (relative to NSL and motorway): conurbations, with more happening on and around roads, pedestrians, etc.

 

There's a world of difference between doing 35 mph along a row of kerbside-parked cars in a 30 zone, and doing 60mph on a straight, flat and unobstructed mile or two of A road with a 50 limit: a kid is far less likely to appear in your 20 yards, running after a ball between 2 parked cars, on that A road.

 

At 30, you might just stop in time. At 35, no chance.

 

That comment just reminded me that I nearly took out a kid on that roundabout at the weekend. Daytime, afternoon, good weather, clear and empty road. I was on the roundabout going straight on (like the Google Streetview shows), he was far to my left but came 'swinging' across me (to the right in the Google Streetview).

 

I was doing 15-ish, about halfway across the roundabout, and glanced a kid that had just come off the roundabout to the left (on the lowered kerb of the pavement of the left exit adjacent the small hill, i.e. wrong side of road for him) on his pushbike, who then proceeded to follow the curve of the roundabout to the right (with me in his rear right quarter by the time I was getting to the next lowered kerb crossing point) and then proceeded to go straight cross the roundabout exit I was coming onto. Never any braking or even a glance my way, as if I wasn't there at all.

 

In the half-second or so it took me to notice his momentum and direction taking him straight across me, I just knew he was going to do that and I'd started to brake hard. If I hadn't dropped anchors, he'd have been on my bonnet or into my left front door. At 30 (that roundabout is do-able at 25+ if you go as straight/close to the central island as poss), there was absolutely no chance I'd have stopped in time.

Edited March 15, 2017 by L00b

[DT Ralge]

Yup, the key word is deaths and not accidents. Physics dictates that higher speeds equals more energy equals more force and more damage and likely higher deaths. Are there more accidents on the autobahns than elsewhere? No it appears (assuming numbers on that website are accurate):

 

http://brandongaille.com/17-fascinating-autobahn-accident-statistics/

 

In fact that shows that you are more than twice as likely to have an accident on US roads than the autobahn. Rather than concentrating on speed on motorways (any pedestrian area needs speed limits and them to be enforced due to the different levels of concentration required to drive around a town safely, you don't need to keep an eye out for pedestrians on the motorway one would hope) lets focus on tailgating which is far more dangerous than speed. If everyone is travelling along at 100mph +/-10% the risk is no greater than at 70mph if everyone keeps sensible gaps between vehicles. Braking time is increased at 100mph compared to 70mph but that matters little if the gap is also increased to compensate. Enforce correct gaps by camera and you'll have my attention more than simply speed which is just an absolute cop-out.

 

You make good points spoiled by reality:

- Germans get ticketed for doing a speed without sufficient space (speed in kms. divided by 2 = required space ahead in meters. Why we don't have speed_space technology beats me.

- all vehicles travelling at the same speed is not really an option (trucks, VW camper vans??)

[ANGELFIRE1]

Seeing as how the course started by saying that ABS didn't change braking distances I'm afraid to say I completely switched off and nodded along like a good little dog. If they'd actually taught correct and useful info then I might have actually paid more than the minimum attention.

 

Don't forget you were at a course run by an eggspurt ( Eggs Spurt is a person who is locked into their ‘speciality’ and will attack and attack again to display his/her brilliance.) Don't lose any sleep over your lack of enthusiasm, I am sure I would fall asleep if I had to attend said course. I have a very short attention span.

 

Angel1.

[DT Ralge]

A 2008 report makes the point it's not so black and white:

 

 

 

but also

 

 

 

Although in a 2014 press release the numbers were different

 

The percentage of German m/w deaths happening on the unlimited stretches 73% came from their 2013 stats. I've located 2015 stats

 

(https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/TransportVerkehr/Verkehrsunfaelle/VerkehrsunfaelleJ2080700157004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile)

 

and the equivalent figure is a shade under 69%.

 

Extracting from the tables:

 

 

2013. 2015

 

M/w deaths:

 

In road works total. 20. 28

Of which w/o limit. 7. 9

And limited: 13. 19

 

Elsewhere 408. 386

Of which w/o limit. 306. 275

And limited. 102. 111

 

TOTALS 428. 414

W/o limit. 313 73.1%. 284 68.6%

With limit 115. 130

 

Edit: so any suggestion that, somehow, magically the higher speeds on the unlimited stretches of the Autobahn network has no negative, safety consequences is a little short of the truth.

(As is the notion that "any decent driver in a modern car can push it a little, speed-wise" in perfect safety.)

Edited March 16, 2017 by DT Ralge

[Cyclone]

Although we'd need to see deaths per driven km rather than absolute numbers for those figures to be directly comparable.

[silentP]

Who'd have guessed that doing 20 over the limit would cause all this eh!

[sgtkate]

The percentage of German m/w deaths happening on the unlimited stretches 73% came from their 2013 stats. I've located 2015 stats

 

(https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/TransportVerkehr/Verkehrsunfaelle/VerkehrsunfaelleJ2080700157004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile)

 

and the equivalent figure is a shade under 69%.

 

Extracting from the tables:

 

 

2013. 2015

 

M/w deaths:

 

In road works total. 20. 28

Of which w/o limit. 7. 9

And limited: 13. 19

 

Elsewhere 408. 386

Of which w/o limit. 306. 275

And limited. 102. 111

 

TOTALS 428. 414

W/o limit. 313 73.1%. 284 68.6%

With limit 115. 130

 

Edit: so any suggestion that, somehow, magically the higher speeds on the unlimited stretches of the Autobahn network has no negative, safety consequences is a little short of the truth.

(As is the notion that "any decent driver in a modern car can push it a little, speed-wise" in perfect safety.)

 

But by the same logic, we can argue that cars doing 20mph would result in practically zero deaths. But it would make modern life a little difficult. So that's the rub, is the increase in risk worth the additional benefits in time saved? No idea. And before anyone says, no amount of monetary benefit is worth a life I will then expect you to say you walk everywhere because any other mode of transport is more likely to kill someone else than walking and the sole reason for using other forms of transport is that they are quicker and more convenient, so you have put your own convenience above someone else's life. As do we all, every single day.

[Cyclone]

But by the same logic, we can argue that cars doing 20mph would result in practically zero deaths. But it would make modern life a little difficult. So that's the rub, is the increase in risk worth the additional benefits in time saved? No idea. And before anyone says, no amount of monetary benefit is worth a life I will then expect you to say you walk everywhere because any other mode of transport is more likely to kill someone else than walking and the sole reason for using other forms of transport is that they are quicker and more convenient, so you have put your own convenience above someone else's life. As do we all, every single day.

 

Walking isn't safe (unless everyone is doing it).

 

Scroll to chart 2 here

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533293/rrcgb-main-results-2015.pdf

 

Going by bus is apparently the safest way to travel, per mile travelled.